It is a kingdom of conscience, or nothing: final Cyber Ethics entry

What is the role of technology in society? Technology plays and intrinsically integral role in the lives of many people, and is necessary to the survival of the human race. Not to mention, it allows us to reach for something higher than ourselves, and bigger than our imaginations dare to dream. In this society, as things continue to grow, in the ways of technology, there are many people asking the same questions about what we need and what is superfluous. But with great power, comes great responsibility. What obligations do we have with these powers? Are we using these abilities for good? For the mediation of this discussion, I will be using the Ten Commandments of Cyber Ethics, as laid out by the Computer Ethics Institute, and referencing it to assess the ethics (or lack thereof) in everyday online exchanges. 

In case you, the reader, are unfamiliar, they are as follows:

Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.

Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.

Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's computer files.

Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.

Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid.

Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization or proper compensation.

Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.

Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing.

Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your fellow humans.

Earlier in the semester, I noted some situations that warranted paranoia. These things were times when idea theft had occurred, and there were moral attachments present with these occurrences. Questions like: when is it theft? or how much is too much? were asked, and I have another question: What should we be doing with this power of media? This is an obvious misuse of power given through technology. It was never a fear in the 1800's, that someone could copy and paste a paper. It is only since the onset of computers that this has become a concern. Idea theft breaks multiple technological commandments: it represents theft of an idea, and it bears false witness by claiming that another person's words are in fact, the thief's.

Many corporations utilize their stronghold on the attention of the American consumer, and often celebrities use their notoriety to spread awareness of social issues or other platforms for the campaign of publicity. Should celebrities be using their popularity to do more of this, rather than aiming to make money? There is no way of telling who is listening and what they will do with the information that you give, when they receive it. In other countries, there are interesting things trending. In Asia, there are young girls with eating disorders because they see American starlets with them, and they equate that with what beauty is. What's even stranger is that there are also grown, established, successful women suffering this same mental affliction. These women do not understand that this is not something that these actresses strive for, but instead, they are forced to eating disorders under extreme social stress. It could be argued that this is an offense of "Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing." If this indirect subliminal messaging is occurring, then what could be coming due to direct influence? 

The psychology involved in advertising is amazing, albeit scary at times. Things like color usage that creates desired effects are rampant. This, to me, is a vicarious offense in the name of 'appropriating other people's intellectual output' because its almost like mind control. Someone who controls the process a mind has, can also control what comes out, for instance, I see red and yellow and this makes me want (insert fast food restaurant name here.) This is unethical to say the least. 


So if all of these perpetrators are allowed to continue to manipulate the usage of technology, where does it stop? It stops with you. The second that you take the time to educate and protect yourself, you remove yourself from any danger, and from all need for fear. We cannot cease our human interactions because we fear we will be taken advantage of, and likewise, an artist cannot stop producing awe-inspiring works. It requires an inclusive action on everyone's behalf to stop the theft of ideas and stop the unconscionable taking advantage of those who are uneducated on the dangers of technology. Additionally, there are many harms that come by way of technology, but all things represent this dichotomy. All tools are possibly weapons, but we must draw on the positive intent of these things and create empires instead of destroying them.

Look what I found...

Earlier in the semester, I mentioned something about this on a thread response, and I was able to find a picture online of the gum I referenced. 

Does this bother anyone else?

Doesn't it seem a little lazy?

or

Is it what's popular?

Ethics of Technology in Agriculture

I recently found this series of videos that discuss the ethics behind the genetic tampering involved in food production. They involve an Indian woman who is working in the field to stop the patenting of a genetically altered seed. Interesting. There are three videos.

Ten Commandments of Cyber Ethics

Here's something I found today that I thought was eloquently silly. It is the Ten Commandments of Cyber Ethics:

Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.

Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.

Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's computer files.

Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.

Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not paid.

Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization or proper compensation.

Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.

Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you are writing or the system you are designing.

Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration and respect for your fellow humans.

Cyber Ethics: Checking in and tagging.

In this age where everyone is 'taggable' and you can 'check in' anywhere you go, it raises an interesting situation related to privacy and safety as a result. What is the point of 'checking in' or 'tagging' friends to say that they are with you somewhere? Is this a form of bragging or allowing people to keep track of where you are and who you are with? Is this safe?

One of the first things that is taught when children are being oriented with the web is never tell others about your whereabouts because you could be found and hurt. So why do we, as adults do this? Most of the time, it is irrelevant to tell people that you are at Starbucks drinking coffee with your boyfriend. It is not necessary information, and it will not enhance the lives of your friends or otherwise captive audience on a social network. Why do we think anyone cares? While I too am guilty of this, I can really only see safety issues. As adults, we have the consent to submit to the possible danger, and hopefully the ability to protect ourselves from what could happen as a result. But the real danger comes from teenagers who check in, because they want to be known as popular, or any other socio-emotional reason that someone would do so.

Part two Cyber Ethics

In perpetuation of exploring the usage of ideas and the ethics related, I've found some interesting sources doing worthwhile work.

CNN has presented many interesting thoughts regarding media theft and online anonymity.

Is there a silver lining to the ever evolving ethics of cyber reality?

There is a project that is exploring the ethical issues that are facing science and technology. The Henrietta Lacks Project is a council of leaders that seek to educate society about the issues facing us by providing science fairs and lectures about how to navigate the bumpy terrain.

Even with the threat of hacking and hawking digital material, many corporations have utilized the built in audience of many networking cites. There are entire companies that specialize in the networking and analyzation of facts and statistics relating to cyber marketing. The productivity of this is very high as shown to the right. It is a fine line to walk to expect people to be ok with having things sold to them on their walls, sandwiched between their grandmother's pictures of her garden and their husband's high school yearbook photos. But this is the risk we run with technology. So at what point do we educate ourselves about how we are being utilized or simply remove ourselves?

At what age do we teach children about these things? More and more, children are being given cell phones at an early age; this is to be expected with the progression of technology. When I was a child, I was taught how to use a computer, whereas my mother had to take classes to learn how. Cell phones may be the next step in that. But what about the dangers that texting presents?

All technology is riddled with benefit and ail and it can be difficult to weigh the pros and cons of having it in our lives.

Take a thought, leave a thought?

Lately I've been finding a surplus of idea theft, in the form of regurgitation of thought. As an artist, I am constantly influenced and inspired by the works of other people. So my question is: at what point is it considered theft? Is the simple reiteration of an idea considered theft? Some believe that it only gets unethical when there is a strict likeness between a rendering and its original counterpart. How far does this go? Could this be color similarity and sentence structure?

In music, there are entire genres that were created in the same decade or location and it sounds the same. Does this mean that the artists are stealing from each other or does it simply imply that they are being influenced by similar stimuli?

In Philosophy, there are time periods where the same ideas are had by many idealists at the same time. This happens to the point where entire centuries are labeled as The Romantic Era or Enlightenment because many prominent thinkers are all focusing on the same concepts, constantly borrowing and tampering with the last guy's theory. Is this theft? or are we all part of the same experience?

Concepts can be presented and comprehended without even realizing them, but what if an idea is stolen? Once an idea is taken, can there be recompense made? Some things cannot be given back, unlearned, or unwritten. Even when credit is given to an artist or writer who has influenced a piece, it doesn't speak about the time spent developing the idea or the contributions made by everyone involved.

Paranoia is warranted in the world of media, because of the high level of competition. Individuals must be careful to safely present their works so as to prevent theft. A dear friend of mine had an entire premise for a short film stolen by someone he thought to be a friend. Luckily, everyone in Hollywood talks and he caught wind of the theft before the screenplay could be filmed.

The obvious answer could be copyrighting information or ideas so that they cannot be stolen. But there is a loophole in graphic design and other creative mediums. It only takes a change of 10% to circumvent copyright infringement. Fair use hinges on monetary gain from use of an idea, but the usage of an idea can still be labeled as unethical.

Has technology and the onset of 'cut and paste' changed the game and made it more difficult to protect an idea from theft?

Once one removes the focus from the prospect of the negative aspects, there is the question of the benefits of instant access to many ideas and information. Could the ability to access information instantly promote growth within society?

Quid Est Veritas?

The idea of truth is subjective and does not always denote honest intentions, and long has the subject been addressed and pondered over. But when does that which is identifiable as ‘human nature’ cross the line into the un-virtuous? The premise of truth is relative and subject to each individual’s definition of truth and perception of reality. It is also comprehensive and ever-evolving. So then, a concrete definition of what constitutes truth must be outlined. As cerebral beings, humans tend to over analyze and categorize what each thing or idea can be identified as. Real truth is much simpler; truth is an accurate depiction of reality, with pure intent, and a full encompassing of every relevant detail.

Sartre refers to something called, ‘bad faith’, which he describes as self-deception. To further his description, he postulates that when one has an untruth in his or her mind, and perpetuates these inequities mentally, actions follow. This is a concept in psychology known as ’minimization’. In short, it is the trivialization and dismissing of truth. An individual can create a reality mentally, and consequently his or her actions will be a direct result of the need to enforce and substantiate this reality. The individual will then minimize all other possible truths to justify actions arisen because of this belief, and will also seek to maintain logical justification of said truth. This is the idea that is embraced in “The Cask of Amontillado”. Montresor has it in his mind that it is justifiable to murder Fortunado, due to Fortunado’s continued disrespect. He may feel justified, but vengeance is rarely an excuse for dishonesty. Truth is not synonymous with honesty; truth is constancy in character, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, and veracity. Another concept in self-deception is the idea of necessary inequity to perpetuate an external reality. For instance, it may be necessary for a man to portray himself in a positive way due to the parameters of his life. He may not be happy, but in order to keep the peace within his domestic and social environment, he may choose to ‘wear a mask’. This is a form of ‘bad faith’ as definable by Sartre, but it reflects virtuous intent.

Virtue is moral excellence; the key to moral excellence is in the golden mean. We become virtuous by doing. Ethics links any act with knowledge. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it. Merely doing the right action is not sufficient to have the moral excellence. One must understand the value of honest actions and proceed with the intent of doing the right thing for the principle of the matter. Also, an action that appears to be noble but is in fact only done for the positive attention is morally devoid, and therefore more dishonest than someone doing a negative action out of honest rage. This idea begs the question of whether Fortunado’s murder is justified because Montresor was simply being honest to himself. In the era that “Cask” was written, it was socially and legally allowable to take a man’s life if he tarnishes another’s reputation or seeks to destroy his honor. Given this logic, it is still morally obligatory to ask if it is justifiable. This is the same question asked with the death penalty. Just because someone does something that warrants punishment, does not mean that it is excusable to punish said act with murder. It offers a level of hypocrisy that most people are willing to swallow because the would be victim has wronged another. Unfortunately, it perpetuates moral repugnancy.

Goodness cannot arise from acting impulsively or based on natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. “A man cannot be judged only in his word, but also in his actions, for a man who speaks pure rhetoric is hateful; he will deceive in every matter. An immolation from iniquity is a stained oblation and the derision of the unjust are not well-pleasing.” (Sirach 37:20) In all of your acts, let a true word precede you. A wicked word can change the heart. Four things arise from action: good and evil, life and death; the tongue is continually their ruler. In “Cask”, a conflict derives from a motivation. The driving motivation in this story is Montresor's desire for revenge.

It has been speculated that the story of “Cask” was written as a competitive response to a fellow writer’s works and deeds. Thomas Dunn English wrote a few pieces poking fun at Poe and even mocking him in satirical prose. This was Poe’s response to English’s taunts. So even the story itself, was written with poor intent. Could it then be deduced that the characters in “Cask” are in fact Montresor and Fortunado? As the story goes, English created a libelous caricature of Poe in one of his stories, and even made specific, detailed allusion to “The Raven”. Poe sued English and his publisher and won the suit. (Silverman) Poe then proceeded to write “Cask” in response. English had insulted Poe, as he felt, inexcusably and numerously, similarly to Montresor’s feelings towards Amontillado. Perhaps Poe’s recanting of the tale of a man murdering his verbal assailant was a form of catharsis, expressing an act that he himself could never commit. Furthermore, Poe’s description of Fortunado is eloquent, as he describes him in an obviously foolhardy way, wearing a clown’s costume and drunkenly fumbling about. It is likely that this is how Poe saw English in his literary career, and ‘murdering’ his career and reputation is the subsequent recompense.

“No one attacks me with impunity.” (Poe) This is the motto of Fortunado’s family crest. If Montresor feels slighted then is it forgivable, based on Fortunado’s family motto, to seek redressing by vengeance? Is it possible that Montresor was a poor judge of what Fortunado’s true intent was? Is it possible that he was so blinded by rage and a hurt pride? This is the hole in the idea that an individual can judge another’s intent and direct his course of action accordingly. At the end of the day, analyzing a person’s actions subjectively is impossible, for the simple fact that an outsider can never know the true intent of a person, nor can they know that which fuels the person. The best estimation of truth and honesty lies in the intentional actions that arise as a result. We do not live in a modal world, therefore we need action to ascend from intent to true virtue.